'Cut government spending and cute kittens like this will die!' says hard-hitting, unbiased BBC 'report'
It’s not often I feel much sympathy for Dave “Grocer” Cameron’s dismal, grubbily compromised Coalition government. But when you see leftist propaganda as blatant as this on the BBC website, you do begin to appreciate the scale of the challenge ahead of them as they try impose their “cuts” – (which aren’t actual spending cuts at all; rather they are decreases in the increase of public spending) – on the bloated public sector. (H/T Sheumais)
The article is headed “Spending Review: What would you cut?”
It invites readers to slash spending in various departments (Welfare, Health, Education and so on), which might seem easy – but whoa! there are consequences here as the BBC’s handy Guilt-O-Slide makes clear. Every percentage cut you inflict on the relevant department is shown by the BBC’s resident computer whizzes to have grim, real life consequences.
For example, the section on Welfare triggers an animation of an old lady slowly dying the more money you take away from her pension. A two per cent cut triggers the death of her cat Tiddles, which she can no longer afford to feed. A three per cent cut means from now on she has to survive on canned dog meat. A four per cent cut shows her turning blue with hypothermia. Etc.
The section on Defence is particularly effective. A five per cent cut, means that our military will no longer be capable of mounting a peace-enforcement operation in any country larger than Lundy. (The puffin graphics are particularly good on this one). Opt for a ten per cent cut and you are shown the graphic consequences of being no longer able to defend ourselves with anything more deadly than Molotov cocktails and pitchforks: British housewives being violated by invading Soviets, just like in Berlin ‘45, while children weep in the background. It was done by the same animation team who did Ed Miliband’s Bedtime Stories drowning pet climate change horror ad, so it’s very moving.
Oh, all right, so I have exaggerated slightly. But check out the web page for yourself – it’s pretty damned nauseating. The cultural assumptions behind it are so nakedly socialistic (Government spending good; low taxes bad) that it might just as well have been produced by Labour party HQ.
blogs.telegraph.co.uk
B is for biased
Written by Matthew Triggs
Via James Delingpole, I see that the last vestige of the BBC’s non-partisan façade has finally slipped:
"Behold the spending review slider! Pay attention, my vicious right-wing audience. You know those 144,625 new affordable homes you want to never see built? Well, cut the Housing Budget by 25% and they never will be! Want to lower the basic pension by £30 a week? Drag that slider to a 30% Welfare cut and watch those poor retirees squirm. Efficiency savings? Cuts to needless bureaucracy? Don’t talk such rot! My viscous free-market perspective necessitates that every penny of my cuts contribute to the great cause of crippling front line services. Up for some poor bashing anyone? I’ll go fetch my golf clubs. Oh I’m salivating just thinking of the devastation my swingeing cuts could achieve were only I at the Treasury!"
adamsmith.org
I don't see the animations they are talking about. Perhaps the BBS modified the page in response to the criticism, or perhaps something about my browser setup, or the firewall I'm behind, blocks the animations. |
